Talk:Embassy of the United States, Baghdad

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject International relations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of International relations on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.International relationsWikipedia:WikiProject International relationsTemplate:WikiProject International relationsInternational relations articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Untitled

Specifically, the article needs a ground-level photo of the embassy grounds. Twinxor t 02:38, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Removed category

I removed Category:Occupation of Iraq. The embassy is a US government project, but is not in principle a military base, so it's not part of the military occupation. Twinxor t 22:04, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

.....Don't be so naive of course it's part of the military occupation

Yes, after all, with that logic we currently occupy over 192 nations in the world because of the presence of the US Embassy. I always get confused when I walk around DuPont Circle. I can never tell who's invading us because of so many different Embassies! Last night it seemed the French were occupying us.

Twixnor, I agree whole heartedly, there needs to be clear delineation between the Foreign Service, the military (DoD) and even the Coalition Provisional Authority. I will work on getting more information and pictures to build this article. Thank you for moving it.--Samfisch (talk) 22:19, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The French are indeed not occupying us, but if the number of employees in their embassy in the US were in the same ratio as that of the number of US employees in our Baghdad embassy to the Iraqi population, then there would be approximately 11,000 regular French employees here, and approximately 33,000 additional staff members. One might then wonder why there were 44,000 people here in the name of diplomacy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.145.109.184 (talk) 02:28, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Broken links

Some of the references here go to news pages which are no longer available. Could an expert take a look please. StopItTidyUp 12:32, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I got "page not found" errors on the below references:

3. ^ a b c US Building Its Largest Embassy in Iraq, Associated Press, 2006-04-14.

4. ^ U.S. Embassy in Iraq to Be World's Biggest, AOL News, 2007-06-05

6. ^ Leila Fadel Massive embassy rising in Iraq Knight Ridder May. 22, 2006

Rkowalke 20:30, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Controversy

Why is there no mention in the article of the controversy over buidling such a gargauntuan embassy? Some of the linked sources do specifically refer to the Iraqi people being angry about it, and their referring to the embassy as "George W's palace", but our article makes no mention at all of this. Redxiv 08:20, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- I AGREE ABSOLOUTELY, I will add section later What about the slavery controversy? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=evRPwwyno_c

Not sure any of those sources mention any sources... 83.254.64.19 20:51, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"“The presence of a massive U.S. embassy — by far the largest in the world — co-located in the Green Zone with the Iraqi government is seen by Iraqis as an indication of who actually exercises power in their country,” the International Crisis Group, a European-based research group, said in 2006." [1] 207.98.198.84 (talk) 02:12, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

How about something about the negative consequences of even having an embassy there? Or, at the very least, the broken promise before the invasion that there would be no permanent bases in Iraq. Sure, it's an embassy, but how would it be seen? 129.49.12.0 (talk) 14:08, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Have any if these changes been made? The article barely mentions anything even slightly negative or controversial about the embassy. Like most Wikipedia articles that touch on politics there is a lot of effort put in to maintain a pro-American/pro-Western “editorial line” even though that is supposedly against Wikipedia rules. User2346 (talk) 15:26, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Old Embassy

An article from 2005 is used to cite it is deserted and for rent. In the article it says that as of 2005 it was RUMORED to be for rent. Can we have some more up to date information?Cs302b (talk) 17:09, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Attacks against it

It would be good to note that since its reestablishment in 2004 the embassy has been the target of many attacks, especially mortar attacks. I was looking for a statistic to say how many times but I haven't found it yet. ~Pesco^{So say•we all} 20:59, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Annual Cost

I noticed it says on the page the annual cost of maintaining the embassy is 6 billion. Considering the entire state department budget for its diplomatic posts is 7.1 for 2013 I didn't think that could be right. The source given doesn't mention 6 billion or any number. So I've removed that from the article, ill try to find an actual number and include it. 99.102.148.28 (talk) 15:21, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Embassy of the United States, Baghdad. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/20071010093534/http://www.cnn.com:80/2007/WORLD/meast/10/05/iraq.embassy.ap/index.html to http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/meast/10/05/iraq.embassy.ap/index.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 13:45, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]